G
GKC
Guest
Not a divorce. Henry sought what was commonplace in his day, at his level of of society, a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine.
As with history in general, it’s a complicated story.
GKC
- Status
As with history in general, it’s a complicated story.
GKC
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes.
Each time I read Aefensang’s post I get the feeling that he’s got one foot out the door. “One last post before I leave this place because Catholics here aren’t welcome to the devastating truths of The Objections To Catholicism that I have to proffer.”
If I misread you, Aefensang, then my apologies. I hope you are here to stay for the duration.
Be aware: you are welcome to charitably offer your objections to Catholicism and to debate and refute…but be forewarned thusly: there are *a whole lot *of knowledgeable Catholics here.
That Catholics are not receiving your* apologia* with a change of mind ought not be interpreted as: Catholics are not willing to hear the truth.
Rather, view it with this analogy: let’s say you came to a forum to discuss how wonderful no-fault divorce has been for society. You proffer statistics, demographics, philosophy, anecdotes, personal experience, etc etc etc…yet you convince no one. Because the truth is: divorce hurts society.
In the above, it’s not that your message wasn’t heard and that you weren’t permitted to proffer it. It’s simply that the argument was rejected as blatantly false and untenable.
P
Porknpie
Guest
I just rented “Man of All Seasons” (1966 edition). Highly recommend the movie. Sir Thomas More was beheaded as a result of this divorce. I’m inspired to learn more about this saint.
G
GKC
Guest
Decree of nullity.I just rented “Man of All Seasons” (1966 edition). Highly recommend the movie. Sir Thomas More was beheaded as a result of this divorce. I’m inspired to learn more about this saint.
“A Man for All Seasons” is an excellent movie, one of my daughter’s particular favorites. It gives a slightly incorrect impression of More, in one respect, but it is a great film, all the same.
Try E.E. Reynolds’ THE FIELD IS WON, for a take on More I think you will like. And John Guy’s THOMAS MORE, for a more close look, including some comments on “A Man for All Seasons”.
GKC
J
joe370
Guest
Please, always remember that in no way am I ever attempting to change your views regarding the catholic church or your allegiance to the Anglican church; just some fun and interesting dialogue!
In view of the fact that Jesus and His apostles are no longer with us, we, as Christians, are really only left with a few choices when it comes to a teaching office aka magisterium:
Sacred scripture via the teaching office of each Christian as they are moved by the holy spirit to discern truth regarding the teachings found in scripture, and resolve doctrinal differences when they occur.
Sacred scripture via the teaching office of one of the churches in the world today, as those church leaders are moved by the holy spirit to discern truth regarding the teachings found in scripture, and resolve differences when they occur.
Sacred scripture via the teaching office of all of the churches in the world today, as those church leaders are moved by the holy spirit to discern truth regarding the teachings found in scripture, and resolve differences when they occur.
Sacred scripture and sacred tradition via the teaching office of one of the churches in the world today, as those church leaders are moved by the holy spirit to discern truth regarding the teachings handed down from the apostles, along with resolving differences when they occur, just as the apostles and their successors did via ecumenical councils.
Sacred scripture and sacred tradition via the teaching office of all of the churches in the world today, as those church leaders are moved by the holy spirit to discern truth regarding the teachings handed down from the apostles, along with resolving differences when they occur, just as the apostles and their successors did via ecumenical councils.
Every single church father that anyone uses to bolster sola scriptura, must also realize that those same church fathers also embrace sacred tradition. So, either those church fathers are hypocrites or folks are reading something into their writings that is not there. I know I was guilty of doing that long ago.
Your thoughts?
A
Aefensang
Guest
SteveH, I will remove your quotes for the sake of a clean post.
The Church of England was initially declared separate in 1533, when the Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532 was passed in Parliament. It declared the Monarch to be the sovereign governor over the national church of the realm, and made any judicial appeals to the Bishop of Rome illegal. This way of government was similar to Constantinople’s government ruling the eastern churches and appointing bishops in the ancient days. There was precedent for Henry’s system, even if his motivation may not have been noble. Protestants posit that: just because it so happened in history that the Bishop of Rome became the de-facto ruler of Roman politics as well as the Roman Church after the 6th century, does not mean every other national church has to follow that rule.
PRMerger, never mind about the Psalm. Jeez!
I am ready to account myself wrong when I am wrong.
Believing that the Holy Ghost inspired Scripture and wants it to be our rule for faith unto salvation, I believe the Holy Ghost used His various inscrutable means & ways to combine and bind the New Testament into a single whole. There are already clues inside the text, as I said at the top of this post. Once the Scriptures were settled by the diligent work of laymen, clergy, and bishops researching the history of the church, I believe that the Holy Ghost finished that work. This is my faith, because history bares it out, as I will show shortly with some ECF quotes.
Just remember that as an Anglican, the 5 solas are not an essential part of our tradition. The 39 articles are more germane to us. One of the Articles does indeed say that all which is required to be believed for salvation is in Scripture. Seems an innocuous teaching, to me!
I do not have one foot through the door already. I apologise if I gave that impression, but I intend to stay and discuss the history of the Church with you dear souls.
- Paul explicitly refers to Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. At least to the Apostle, the authoritative New Testament was certainly extant already in some little way.
- Indeed, not one syllable uttered by our Lord & Saviour was in vain. John does confirm that more has been said and done by Christ than can be recorded in any books, and yet the same author also says that Gospel was written that its readers may have life in the name of the one they believe in. He need not literally say “only this book can bring you to eternal life”, because he says “if you read this book, you will attain eternal life” - it’s the same meaning. Eternal life is our goal; if the Gospel of John can lead us there, it is all-sufficient for revealed truth even by itself. This is what a single book of the Bible claims, and it sends me into heights of joy, thanking God for the simplicity of His plan.
- The Anglican liturgy derives from the ancient Catholic tradition of the liturgy, which is a creation of men (except for any scriptural words & actions in it). There is nothing wrong with extra-scriptural liturgies. All liturgies descend from the simple ones in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apostolic Tradition, which ultimately come from the Last Supper. Part of why I am Anglican is the fact that the Book of Common Prayer’s Communion service is remarkably like that of the ancient Catholic ones - just as the Mass, the Divine Liturgy, and Divine Service all descend therefrom.
- The Head of the Universal Church is the pastor and bishop of our souls, the Lord Jesus Christ. In Him all bishops have an equal office and dignity, for they share it as brothers, receiving it from Him. Contrary to popular myth, neither Henry VIII nor Elizabeth I named themselves the Head (Caput) of the Ecclesiae Anglicanae. They named themselves Supreme Governor on Earth, i.e. in terms of ecclesiastical and canonical law disputes.
The Church of England was initially declared separate in 1533, when the Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532 was passed in Parliament. It declared the Monarch to be the sovereign governor over the national church of the realm, and made any judicial appeals to the Bishop of Rome illegal. This way of government was similar to Constantinople’s government ruling the eastern churches and appointing bishops in the ancient days. There was precedent for Henry’s system, even if his motivation may not have been noble. Protestants posit that: just because it so happened in history that the Bishop of Rome became the de-facto ruler of Roman politics as well as the Roman Church after the 6th century, does not mean every other national church has to follow that rule.
PRMerger, never mind about the Psalm. Jeez!
I am ready to account myself wrong when I am wrong.Believing that the Holy Ghost inspired Scripture and wants it to be our rule for faith unto salvation, I believe the Holy Ghost used His various inscrutable means & ways to combine and bind the New Testament into a single whole. There are already clues inside the text, as I said at the top of this post. Once the Scriptures were settled by the diligent work of laymen, clergy, and bishops researching the history of the church, I believe that the Holy Ghost finished that work. This is my faith, because history bares it out, as I will show shortly with some ECF quotes.
Just remember that as an Anglican, the 5 solas are not an essential part of our tradition. The 39 articles are more germane to us. One of the Articles does indeed say that all which is required to be believed for salvation is in Scripture. Seems an innocuous teaching, to me!
I do not have one foot through the door already. I apologise if I gave that impression, but I intend to stay and discuss the history of the Church with you dear souls.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then, Aefensang, you will have to admit that, as the Psalmist (also an infallible human person, yes?) is speaking about the written law, and the NT had not yet been written, that ONLY the Old Testament Scriptures are a lamp unto our feet?In the context of Psalm 119, the psalmist is speaking about the written law. He calls it God’s word, God’s testimony, God’s law, God’s commandments, and many other things. The Law is something specific - not the traditions of the Talmud, but the written word of the Torah. I think the context suggests written tradition alone.
P
PRmerger
Guest
:tiphat:PRMerger, never mind about the Psalm. Jeez!
Yes. But not our ONLY rule of faith.
No where do the Scriptures proclaim this, and as such it is only something that you have heard uttered by a fallible man, who heard another fallible man declare this, who heard another fallible pastor proclaim this, who heard another fallible Christian profess this…
but NO ONE ever read that in the Sacred Scriptures.
As such, it is an untenable position for Sola Scriptura advocates.
A
Aefensang
Guest
joe370
I wish proselytizing was allowed on this forum, for both sides. We are to strive for the truth and have zeal, not be quiet. Courtesy is important too though, I guess.
Why do you assume a Magisterium is required? The Fathers clearly believed that Scripture was perspicuous & clear. The Scripture is the Magisterium, in a profound sense. I regard the Fathers as authorities insofar as their opinions are proved out of Scripture (which they all endeavoured to do). It doesn’t mean they’re infallible. My parents are an authority who I am bound to obey in love and respect of the commandments, but it does not make them infallible. That’s the Anglican view of church authority, hehe.
For those Fathers who said things like “the truths of the faith have been passed down through all the Churches since the Apostles’ days”, I do not believe it is implied that this fidelity will necessarily continue for all time. They were saying that tradition kept the faith unblemished for those 200, 300, or 400 years that had passed. None of them say that the Church will always continue faithfully, just that it has done so far.
Vincent of Lérins positively says that the Church can err and even if the entire Church errs at some point, we have the ancient faith to go back to: a golden age when the truth was held in righteousness.
newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
Vincent Commonitorium Chapter 3:
Scripture never says it is the only infallible rule of saving faith, and yet it offers no other rule of saving faith. Do you not find that significant? Don’t quote 2 Thessalonians on oral traditions, because Paul could very well have been speaking only to that church. Notice that he says “hold fast” to the traditions delivered to you, not to the Church at large.
I wish proselytizing was allowed on this forum, for both sides. We are to strive for the truth and have zeal, not be quiet. Courtesy is important too though, I guess.
Your list is not complete, for every last one has an implicit a-priori assumption that a Magisterium is absolutely necessary to individual salvation.
Why do you assume a Magisterium is required? The Fathers clearly believed that Scripture was perspicuous & clear. The Scripture is the Magisterium, in a profound sense. I regard the Fathers as authorities insofar as their opinions are proved out of Scripture (which they all endeavoured to do). It doesn’t mean they’re infallible. My parents are an authority who I am bound to obey in love and respect of the commandments, but it does not make them infallible. That’s the Anglican view of church authority, hehe.
The Fathers embraced sacred tradition as a term for the sacred Scripture. The Apostolic Tradition, what the Apostles handed-down, is the Scripture. Wearing Catholic glasses, have you ever found it odd that the Fathers revere “tradition”, yet never define what it is? On the other hand, they constantly revere Scripture, defining it by quoting it and relating passages to each other.
For those Fathers who said things like “the truths of the faith have been passed down through all the Churches since the Apostles’ days”, I do not believe it is implied that this fidelity will necessarily continue for all time. They were saying that tradition kept the faith unblemished for those 200, 300, or 400 years that had passed. None of them say that the Church will always continue faithfully, just that it has done so far.
Vincent of Lérins positively says that the Church can err and even if the entire Church errs at some point, we have the ancient faith to go back to: a golden age when the truth was held in righteousness.
newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
Vincent Commonitorium Chapter 3:
PRMerger, The Psalmist was not “an infallible man”; God is infallible, and illuminates and inspires those whom He wishes to inspire in the communication of absolute truth. Just wanted to make a little correction.
Scripture never says it is the only infallible rule of saving faith, and yet it offers no other rule of saving faith. Do you not find that significant? Don’t quote 2 Thessalonians on oral traditions, because Paul could very well have been speaking only to that church. Notice that he says “hold fast” to the traditions delivered to you, not to the Church at large.
P
PRmerger
Guest
If you will, could you please provide what “clues” are in 3 John and Hebrews that tell you that it is *theopneustos, *that also excludes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas?
Again, you only believe this because you heard a fallible man declare this, who heard another fallible man proclaim this, who heard another fallible man decide this was true…
but no one EVER read “the Holy Spirit finished that work” in a single page of Scripture.
In fact, do not the Scriptures declare the contrary?!! That Christ will be with the Church unto the end of time?
Excellent.
Then I stand corrected.
Welcome and may you be long in the tooth here!
J
joe370
Guest
Would you agree with the following:
The catholic church early on, was often faced with heretical movements from within the church and without. For example, a 2nd century heretic named Marcion proposed to remove the OT, labelling it the product of an evil god and altering the NT by canonizing the letters of Paul minus those undesirable OT references; same with the gospels. Can you imagine if he would have succeeded?
It was the CC, when faced with these new challenges to the faith, that responded by proposing the first canon of sacred scripture. Here we have a perfect example of Marcion attempting to take away from the tradition of sacred scripture e.g. certain books from the Bible, and what did the Catholic church teaching office do: they applied the touchstone of sacred tradition to make a definitive judgement regarding sacred scripture.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then, sadly, Aefensang, you cannot declare to me that God has proclaimed that His Word is a lamp unto your feet.
The psalmist, as you say, is fallible. And therefore capable of being wrong. In fact, will be wrong. Most definitively.
And in those 150 psalms, by definition of fallibility, was wrong somewhere.
Where?
Do you see, Aefensang, how very, very dangerous it is to declare that the psalmist was fallible?
G
GKC
Guest
Historical correction:SteveH, I will remove your quotes for the sake of a clean post.
I don’t feel that it has yet been made sufficiently clear to me that both Scripture and tradition are the word of God. That is a very lofty claim, especially given the amount of times the Lord Jesus has harsh words about tradition. In 2 Thessalonians, when Paul does exhort the church to keep his oral traditions, he uses the word paradosis - the same word Christ used to describe the false teachings of the Pharisees. Just an interesting point to think on…
- Paul explicitly refers to Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. At least to the Apostle, the authoritative New Testament was certainly extant already in some little way.
The Church of England existed long before 1533. It was never simply a province of Rome, which suddenly declared itself a new Church. It existed as a national church before 604, when Augustine was sent to reform it, and it existed before 1066, when William came to remake it in the Carolingian & Ottonian Roman Imperial image. That is what I believe. I can go into the history if you want, but we should answer the other things first.
- Indeed, not one syllable uttered by our Lord & Saviour was in vain. John does confirm that more has been said and done by Christ than can be recorded in any books, and yet the same author also says that Gospel was written that its readers may have life in the name of the one they believe in. He need not literally say “only this book can bring you to eternal life”, because he says “if you read this book, you will attain eternal life” - it’s the same meaning. Eternal life is our goal; if the Gospel of John can lead us there, it is all-sufficient for revealed truth even by itself. This is what a single book of the Bible claims, and it sends me into heights of joy, thanking God for the simplicity of His plan.
- The Anglican liturgy derives from the ancient Catholic tradition of the liturgy, which is a creation of men (except for any scriptural words & actions in it). There is nothing wrong with extra-scriptural liturgies. All liturgies descend from the simple ones in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apostolic Tradition, which ultimately come from the Last Supper. Part of why I am Anglican is the fact that the Book of Common Prayer’s Communion service is remarkably like that of the ancient Catholic ones - just as the Mass, the Divine Liturgy, and Divine Service all descend therefrom.
- The Head of the Universal Church is the pastor and bishop of our souls, the Lord Jesus Christ. In Him all bishops have an equal office and dignity, for they share it as brothers, receiving it from Him. Contrary to popular myth, neither Henry VIII nor Elizabeth I named themselves the Head (Caput) of the Ecclesiae Anglicanae. They named themselves Supreme Governor on Earth, i.e. in terms of ecclesiastical and canonical law disputes.
The Church of England was initially declared separate in 1533, when the Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532 was passed in Parliament. It declared the Monarch to be the sovereign governor over the national church of the realm, and made any judicial appeals to the Bishop of Rome illegal. This way of government was similar to Constantinople’s government ruling the eastern churches and appointing bishops in the ancient days. There was precedent for Henry’s system, even if his motivation may not have been noble. Protestants posit that: just because it so happened in history that the Bishop of Rome became the de-facto ruler of Roman politics as well as the Roman Church after the 6th century, does not mean every other national church has to follow that rule.
PRMerger, never mind about the Psalm. Jeez!
Believing that the Holy Ghost inspired Scripture and wants it to be our rule for faith unto salvation, I believe the Holy Ghost used His various inscrutable means & ways to combine and bind the New Testament into a single whole. There are already clues inside the text, as I said at the top of this post. Once the Scriptures were settled by the diligent work of laymen, clergy, and bishops researching the history of the church, I believe that the Holy Ghost finished that work. This is my faith, because history bares it out, as I will show shortly with some ECF quotes.
Just remember that as an Anglican, the 5 solas are not an essential part of our tradition. The 39 articles are more germane to us. One of the Articles does indeed say that all which is required to be believed for salvation is in Scripture. Seems an innocuous teaching, to me!
I do not have one foot through the door already. I apologise if I gave that impression, but I intend to stay and discuss the history of the Church with you dear souls.
Henry’s Act of Supremacy (1534), declared the king’s majesty the supreme head in earth of the Church of England (Anglicana Ecclesia). Elizabeth’s Act of Supremacy (1559) declared her supreme governor, in matters of state and matters ecclesiastical, in a whole lot more words. Henry was more blunt and terse.
Via media, was Elizabeth.
GKC
J
joe370
Guest
Couldn’t we just assume that all the writers of scripture were fallible men who wrote infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit?
Then, sadly, Aefensang, you cannot declare to me that God has declared that His Word is a lamp unto your feet.
The psalmist, as you say, is fallible. And therefore capable of being wrong. In fact, will be wrong. Most definitively.
And in those 150 psalms, by definition of fallibility, was wrong somewhere.
Where?
Do you see, Aefensang, how very, very dangerous it is to declare that the psalmist was fallible?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Of course it does, Aefensang.
The Sacred Scriptures declare that the pillar and foundation of truth is not itself.
But rather…
wait for it…
wait for it…
the CHURCH.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And that, friend, is a perfect Catholic definition of the charism of infallibility enjoyed by the Church.
A
Aefensang
Guest
I did not make claims for 3 John or Hebrews. The only clues in the New Testament pointing to new authoritative scriptures being written at the time, are two: Paul’s quoting Luke as scripture, and Peter’s referring to Paul as scripture. Regardless of whether Peter wrote 2 Peter, the words calling Paul’s epistles ‘scripture’ are in that text. These are little clues, I think, toward the Protestant conception of history.
I’ve already replied 2-3 times above. I can’t keep going at this rate, so late at night. Please read over all the points I’ve just made in the last 2 pages, and go a little more slowly. I wish you a good night and a peaceful sleep, for now, leaving you with this:
Christ said He will be with you until the end of the age* at the Last Supper,* the plural pronoun referring to the 11 Apostles. I suppose this cannot apply to the entire Church, since there are no Apostles left today. No bishops claim it, so the office can hardly exist - a true Apostle always declared it loudly and boldly.
I would not agree with that, because it contradicts itself:
How could Marcion propose the removal of the Old Testament from the Scripture if the canon of Scripture was not yet settled? He could hardly get rid of the OT by altering the NT if neither one officially existed yet. Remember, Marcion flourished in the 150s, 250 years before the (contradictory) canons were defined at Hippo and Carthage.
Your presentation of Marcion’s history assumes my side of the argument to be correct: that the Canon was already complete and recognised by all in the middle of the 2nd century. It somewhat defeats your point, as far as I can tell?
By the way, in case you mention the canon of 382 from Pope Damasus: there was no definition of the Canon at the Council of Rome in 382. The “Damasine Canon” is was faked by a 6th century anon.
See: tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
If there are grave difficulties for the Protestant version of the history of the Church and Scripture, there are equally grave difficulties for the Roman version.
Now, I wish you a good and joyous night as well, and a blessed Sunday to everyone else discussing here.
T
Taestron
Guest
Sorry, I was away from this thread for a few days and have no idea what has been covered on this point. But generally, I would say that fallible men can write infallible Scripture if and only if God also writes Scripture. So while the psalmist is fallible, it does not necessarily follow that the Psalms are fallible. Couldn’t a fallible carpenter create a perfect cabinet? Couldn’t a skilled carpenter make 150 perfect cabinets in his/her life? And that is without divine intervention. But with the Holy Spirit also being an author of the Psalms, it becomes impossible that we could consider the Psalms fallible. Basically, calling the Psalmist fallible does not necessitate the fallibility of the Psalms.
Then, sadly, Aefensang, you cannot declare to me that God has proclaimed that His Word is a lamp unto your feet.
The psalmist, as you say, is fallible. And therefore capable of being wrong. In fact, will be wrong. Most definitively.
And in those 150 psalms, by definition of fallibility, was wrong somewhere.
Where?
Do you see, Aefensang, how very, very dangerous it is to declare that the psalmist was fallible?
J
joe370
Guest
And they convoked when necessary via ecumenical councils to teach and resolve doctrinal differences, and they did this quite often. In other words, a teaching office (magisterium) was in fact required; without it, heresies could not have been quashed.
OK. :thumbsup:Of course, no human is infallible. The infallible holy spirit guided fallible people just the holy spirit did with the writers of the Bible. The 64000 dollar question is: did the Infallible Holy Spirit stop guiding fallible leaders (successors of the apostles) once all of the apostle had died? If that is true then truth, in a world with so much doctrinal division, might just be unknowable.
Didn’t Jesus say to His fledgling church teaching office:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Perhaps you mean sacred tradition in writing? OK…They also clearly talked about oral tradition. I have got a bevy of quotes from fathers in the east and west.
Augustine Believed in authoritative tradition
Code:
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, 'that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to Apostolic Tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,' is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).PRMerger, The Psalmist was not “an infallible man”; God is infallible, and illuminates and inspires those whom He wishes to inspire in the communication of absolute truth. Just wanted to make a little correction.
What about all of those bishops that were chosen by the apostles, teaching in the name of Jesus, just as the apostles did, long before the bible was codified?
So paul would expect only that one church to hold fast to the traditions, and no other…? Nah…I don’t think so…
- Status